Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 picks up where Modern Warfare 2 left off with the invasion of Manhattan by Russian forces. You will blaze through 20 action-packed missions located in England, Russia, America, Germany, and France, playing as a Russian Federal Protective Services agent, an SAS Operative and a tank gunner. The Spec-Ops missions from MW2 will make a return, split into "Mission" and "Survival" modes. Also, Call of Duty: MW3 will have the amazing CoD-style multiplayer that you have come to known.

Good news everyone, Modern Warfare 3 will have dedicated server support for PC players! This was revealed today at Gamescom by the associate manager for Call of Duty Digital, Jay Frechette, and reaffirmed by Sledgehammer boss Glen Schofield on Twitter.

It is good to see developers learning from their mistakes, the mapping community will not be silent if you cross them! *fist pumps and so on*

you do know, everything after call of duty 4, isnt really 5,6,7, and soon 8, after modern warfare 3, they could make a game called Call of Duty 5, kind of like how grand theft auto had a few games after 3, and then they made gta 4...

That's how much DLC should cost, but no! They have to be something like $15-$20! That doesn't even make sense for just 5 maps! It's like 25% of the price for the actual game which has everything in it, and just 5 maps cost THAT much! It's ridiculous!

Ok so let me see this week so far we have had:
Dice: BF3 64 player gameplay with jets.
Crytek: Releasing the CryEngine 3 toolkit.
IW: Um, we have reanbled dedi servers.
:/ Excuse me but im a bit underwhelmed.

Except Infinity Ward doesn't exist anymore... Its now called Respawn. Infinity Ward are the only ones who would actually make a GOOD CoD game. Take a look at the original and its expansion for example. Oh, and CoD 2. Then there was the LAST good thing to ever come from the name "Call of Duty" was the first Modern Warfare.

After that, its been Treyarch remaking the same damn ****, re-skinned, re-textured, re-mapped, and ******* re-cycled over; and over, and over, and over, and over... Then all sold at a full retail price.

But thanks for the effort Treyarch. Thanks for the attempt Activision. But I think I'm quite content with sticking to a game development company whom has NEVER disappointed me in the past, wouldn't ever in the future, and would stay true to the creed "Create games for the passion of creating quality and fun for gamers" and not "Create the same game 20 times to see how many loyal idiots we can keep making money off of."

lol activision is the Apple of games software :P! take something out, then put it back in when demand rises, giving a fake incentive to customers so they buy their games. Its getting ridiculous and gamers need to stay away from it.

Counter Strike has, as incredible as it seems, a lot more tactical based gameplay than CoD.

In Counter-strike you get many different maps with different approaches for each team, where the loadout actually matters, specially when talking about grenades. Walking slowly and silently works wonders when behind enemy lines, and sure, running and gunning also work in that game if everyone is doing so. But if a team is coordinated enough (or skilled enough) they're able to make the game interesting. Since you only have one life per round, some people try and make the best of it by not wasting it. The fact that you get rewarded with money for better weapons every round keeps the game playable for veteran and new gamers alike.

In Call of Duty Modern Warfare series, however, all you have is running and gunning. The ridiculously low penalty for dying and simplistic aiming system makes it, technically, a casual game. When killed you pretty much instantly respawn, so all you need to do is run, hold the ironsight button pressed and spray everywhere. It's a fast passed simplistic shooter and that's why most people like it, no one plays it for being tactical. In the CoD MW series there's also a levelling system, which gives you better equipment as you play the game, giving you an advantage over new players.

Of course, they had to add something to differ the "rookies" from the "veterans", and since the gameplay is not based on skill, the only way to do it was through the levelling system.

That argument doesn't work because you are compairing a new MW player to an experienced CS one. You can do that with any 2 competitive games to make one sound bad.

You could easy say- "CS is all just the pistol round, lose that and it's almost impossible to gain the upper hand again. Plus skilled player have the upper hand simply by knowing the map, the best weapons to buy and where to camp."

and then say about MW- "the game rewards getting skilled with specific weapons. Spray and prey only works for the early game, a skilled team will steamroll you. Someone who dies alot isn't going to get the killstreaks to help the team win." ect.

A better example is look at TF2 fanboys. They will swear blind that the game is 100% perfectly balenced and then when they lose a game they will shout at you for not picking/having the 'right' weapons. So, to make TF2 look bad, simply bring up the weapons being horribly inbalenced and victory being determed by crits rather than teamwork. If you want to make TF2 look good, just say the opposate, it's perfectly balenced, and good teamwork beats lucky crits every time.

The truth is likely in the middle. Both CS and MW are a balence between twitch and tatics. To say CS is all tactics and MW is all twitch is disingenuous imo.

Don't be ridiculous, who cares if you have overpowered weapons (only demoman's melee weps are OP in my opinion)? In TF2 the skilled players win, I know it, i've been playing it for over 200 hours (months before it became f2p) and i never get tired of it, default weapons are just as good as unlockables if you know how to use them. In the other hand, i bought mw2 some days ago, i'm level 27, I'm soooo bored now, it's easy to know how this works: noobtubers everywhere, campers in every damn corner, the first team who gets an AC130 wins, it's as easy as that...

I like dedicated servers, but I think people were to harsh on peer to peer.

The things I will miss from the peer to peer system is that you always get a full game, not a bunch of empty servers or servers with only 2 guys, and if a team rage quit, another instantly filled the void. Not to mention no quake sounds, no 30 players crammed into a 4v4 map, no motd spams telling you not to be racist and visit the forum every 15 seconds, no needing maps that are exactly like the stock ones with a barrel moved 3 inches to right for 'balence'. Oh, and it was easy to play with friends.

However, given the problems with peer to peer such as lag and disconnects, I prefer dedicated servers.

Considering how most dedicated servers are in datacenters or are run by people with a decent pipe to the server, this is definitely a change back to normality. How many people were playing and hosting off of a DSL connection that probably couldn't handle a 2v2 game, much less 6v6?

Plus, the whole notion of having "host" is ridiculous, the advantage you gain is enormous.

Also, microwaves won't screw over EVERYONE playing now if the host is by one running, just the person near the microwave.Xkcd.com

Not like a care, I'm still not getting it anyway due to the fact that the gameplay will be almost exactly the same as CoD 4 and MW2, I've gotten tired of those two games' gameplay, so... not much point buying it if it's just for a few new weapons, maps and perks when you're not interested in the game itself anymore. The £40 price tag also just makes me want it even less.

except battlefield will be entirely new all cod mw3 will have is 1 new game mode, 2 new guns, 1 new map, 50 dlc's for 10 euros or whatever currency you have, wich are already done before full game release.
and the players will be even worse then in the older games.